swarm_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned state and adds a non-obvious caveat that votes should not be treated as correctness evidence, but it omits whether swarm_id must reference an existing swarm, error behavior for unknown IDs, or whether the call is side-effect free.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two terse sentences with no filler; the return payload is front-loaded and the caveat is appended where it is most useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the return contents adequately, but leaves swarm_id semantics and any failure modes undocumented. It is workable but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about swarm_id — its format, where it comes from, or whether it must be an existing swarm. The name is largely self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap as the rules require.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates exactly what is returned: state, in-flight workers, nominations, and best validated score. An agent can tell this is the read-only observation tool among siblings like swarm_init, swarm_commit, and swarm_nominate, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The clause 'Votes are not correctness evidence' is interpretive guidance about results, not about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.